Changes

A "violence of language"? Where in his statement is there a "violence of language?" I see nothing malicious or offensive by any standard. If there were ad hominem attacks or, THAT would be violence of language. It seems like you instantly categorized him as an "ES-sufferer" without actually reading his comment. What he was trying to say was that because there are no sources for this article, and the term does not appear frequently elsewhere, that it is of questionable validity. And, like he said, it violates the basic principles of Conservapedia. The example you gave of typologizing atheist behaviors proves exactly what he was suggesting about creating information. YOU are creating a term for something, rather than defining a previously existing term. The point of an encyclopedia is not to come up with new terms and words, but rather to explain those that are used elsewhere in the world. Unless you can provide a valid source of this term, then it is original research. And ironically, you seemed to have missed the statement "I like it" in his comment, which suggests that he is not a crazed ES-sufferer, but rather trying to keep Conservapedia true to its own commandments, despite his general agreement with the information in the article. Personally, I also agree with the information, however I feel that unless it can be verified, it is an embarassingly baseless generalization of anti-creationist efforts. Certainly there are people that are like this article describes. There are radicals and extremists in every group. There are even extremists among the Creationists, which cannot seriously be denied (I am a Creationist by the way). To create a page about these nutjobs is not notable UNLESS you are defining a particular group of extremists (for instance, Al Queda among Islamic extremists), the generalization of the radical group is widely recognized (for instance: terrorists) and as such can be supported with reputable sources, or you are attempting to describe the entirety of the group as having these radical characteristics. In the case of Evolution Syndrome, none of these are present. If you were to find a source that supports that Evolution Syndrome is a legitimate term, let alone mental condition, then the article would be notable. Atleast provide evidence of the crimes that those with "ES" are accused of. If they censor Creationism in the classroom, provide concrete support of that accusation, or else it is baseless slander. Here's hoping that somebody has the time or ability to find support for all of the accustations in this article. This may very well be an important social trend of the "activities of atheists", like you've said, but until there is valid support for the term, it isn't. [[User:Br1|Br1]] 00:19, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

A "violence of language"? Where in his statement is there a "violence of language?" I see nothing malicious or offensive by any standard. If there were ad hominem attacks or, THAT would be violence of language. It seems like you instantly categorized him as an "ES-sufferer" without actually reading his comment. What he was trying to say was that because there are no sources for this article, and the term does not appear frequently elsewhere, that it is of questionable validity. And, like he said, it violates the basic principles of Conservapedia. The example you gave of typologizing atheist behaviors proves exactly what he was suggesting about creating information. YOU are creating a term for something, rather than defining a previously existing term. The point of an encyclopedia is not to come up with new terms and words, but rather to explain those that are used elsewhere in the world. Unless you can provide a valid source of this term, then it is original research. And ironically, you seemed to have missed the statement "I like it" in his comment, which suggests that he is not a crazed ES-sufferer, but rather trying to keep Conservapedia true to its own commandments, despite his general agreement with the information in the article. Personally, I also agree with the information, however I feel that unless it can be verified, it is an embarassingly baseless generalization of anti-creationist efforts. Certainly there are people that are like this article describes. There are radicals and extremists in every group. There are even extremists among the Creationists, which cannot seriously be denied (I am a Creationist by the way). To create a page about these nutjobs is not notable UNLESS you are defining a particular group of extremists (for instance, Al Queda among Islamic extremists), the generalization of the radical group is widely recognized (for instance: terrorists) and as such can be supported with reputable sources, or you are attempting to describe the entirety of the group as having these radical characteristics. In the case of Evolution Syndrome, none of these are present. If you were to find a source that supports that Evolution Syndrome is a legitimate term, let alone mental condition, then the article would be notable. Atleast provide evidence of the crimes that those with "ES" are accused of. If they censor Creationism in the classroom, provide concrete support of that accusation, or else it is baseless slander. Here's hoping that somebody has the time or ability to find support for all of the accustations in this article. This may very well be an important social trend of the "activities of atheists", like you've said, but until there is valid support for the term, it isn't. [[User:Br1|Br1]] 00:19, 15 June 2009 (EDT)